The court held that eviction proceedings under the Public Premises Act cannot proceed while disputes regarding license fee enhancements are unresolved in civil court.

ORDER

Challenge has been made to the Order of the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in allowing the appeal filed as against the Order passed by the the third respondent under section 5[1] of the Public Premises [Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants] Act 1971.

2. The brief background of the facts of the case is as follows :

a] The respondent/licensee was originally inducted into the possession of the property on the basis of the licence fee fixed at Rs.65 per sq.mt. per annum. Basic amenities like water, power, drainage, sewerage, road and security will be provided for the licensee, who are seeking allotment of land. The respondent was allotted plot Nos.71 and 72 on payment of Rs.65/-- per sq.ft. per annum. The respondent has also put up construction by setting up their plant. The license period was for 10 years Subsequently in 2001, the license fee was enhanced from Rs.65/- to Rs.85 per annum per sq.mt. According to the respondent, he was paying the enhanced rent, without any default. When the matter stood thus, the second respondent issued a notice indicating that the license fee has been enhanced to Rs.120 per annum per sq.mt. from may 2001 and also sought additional security deposit. Since rents have been increased arbitrarily, the same has been challenged in the Writ Petition in W.P.No.24444 of 2005 the said Writ Petition was disposed on 07.02.2013 by directing the respondent to approach the Civil Court to challenge the enhancement of rent. Till filing of the suit, an interim Order has also been granted by this Court.

b] Based on the Orders obtained from this Court, a suit has been filed in O.S.No.6110 of 2013 on the file of the XVI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai for permanent injunction and mandatory injunction to refix the rent. The suit and the appeal filed in this regard have been dismissed. Now it appears that the second appeal has been filed and the same is yet to be numbered before this Court. In the meanwhile, the respondent has also filed Writ Petitions in W.P.No.81075 of 2023 and W.P.No.23399 of 2012 challenging the electricity service charges demanded by the revision petitioners. The said Writ Petitions have been disposed on 18.07.2013. However, in the Writ Appeals filed in W.A.Nos.1874 of 2023 and 1766 of 2013, this Court has directed the respondent to create a mortgage in respect of the super structure constructed by them as security towards electricity charges and also machineries. Accordingly, the mortgage deed has also been executed by both sides. Now another Civil suit in C.S.No.313 of 2017 has also been filed seeking a direction to the Port Trust to pay a sum of Rs.71,26,709/-, which is said to be the excess amount paid by the respondent with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. At this stage, now the impugned Order has been passed by the Estate Officer on the ground that the enhanced rents have not been paid as on date of the Order and huge arrears is due by the respondent. Therefore, treated them as an unauthorized occupants under Public Premises [Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants] Act 1971. As against which an appeal has been preferred in CMA.39 of 2023. The appellate Court taking note of the proceedings pending between the parties, has set aside the said Order. Challenging the same, the present revision petition has been filed .

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent and perused entire materials available on record.

4. It is an admitted fact that the license has been original entered between the parties is already over by efflux of time. I